11 ms·

The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful. >>> User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much every

by vilmosi 11y ago

The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful. >>> User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. It's a strategic move that's not fueled by wanting better UX for users. I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads. >>>That also plays into Apple’s other general message, about how it doesn’t track what you do when you’re using its products Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. That's the whole reason they're allowing Web ads to be blocked. So you'll see more of iAds. Nothing to do about "caring for your privacy".

kazinator 11y ago
You are spot on. Apple's obvious point of view is this: random websites not affiliated with Apple are using our devices to advertize to the user. That must be stopped! We own the device, after all, and if the user is going to be advertized to, we give the permission for that and want a cut. Plus the wild and wooly ads are obnoxious. We can decide what is acceptable to our users and how it is presented, for a better (though not ad-free) experience.
- dhimes 11y ago
  Imagine LG doing something like this with their TVs...
  - fuzzy76 11y ago
    Adblocking? I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
Steko 11y ago
> The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. This is baloney, Apple hosts free apps at a loss. The idea that Apple wants you to have an app for every website is absolutely ridiculous. Safari is one of the most used iOS apps today and will be so for at least the better part of the next decade. > Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. In all likelihood Apple sees a competitive browser advantage: people like X, Google will not do X on Android. They'll load up The Verge during the keynote and show that it takes 1/X the time that the top of the line Android phones do and 11 year olds will walk around telling each other that Safari is X times faster than Chrome.
- e40 11y ago
  iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. It may be now, but I'll bet they don't think it will be in the future.
  - Steko 11y ago
    Optional, download-it-yourself ad blockers aren't likely to move the needle on iAd growth. This is the problem with many of the comments here. 90% of iOS users won't use it.
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    I doubt it will be around in the future. Apple introduced iAds because they wanted better (i.e., less tacky) mobile ads. Recall their initial messaging around iAds: we design your ads, extremely costly initial ad buys, only big brands. They even enabled WebGL just for iAd. Unfortunately banner ads are tacky no matter what. iAds was all about making the rising-in-popularity (at the time) free, ad-supported apps less horrid. Increasing the perceived quality of their platform, and selling more hardware.
danieldk 11y ago
That's too simple. Apple (and others) have relentlessly tried to optimize power saving. People like phones with a good battery time, plus I assume that there can be significant cost saving if you can use smaller capacity batteries. They have probably come to a point where a significant amount of power use during mobile browsing is caused by ads (both rendering and the extra network use that it incurs). Blocking ads could be a welcome power saver.
- ethbro 11y ago
  While this pay be true, at some point profit trumps UX. Look at how the iPod+iTunes morphed as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM and a store.
  - Steko 11y ago
    Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....
    - ethbro 11y ago
      >> Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/* https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.... > The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music. "Thoughts on Music" | Steve Jobs | February 6, 2007 ----------- And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Taking Jobs 100% at his word (i.e. Apple was dedicated to DRM-free music, was in continual negotiation with the labels to strip it, and was contractually obligated to continue to use it despite their reluctance), here's how the timeline ultimately turned out: * October 23, 2001 - First iPod introduced * April 28, 2003 - iTunes Store w/ Fairplay introduced * February 6, 2007 - Job's "Thoughts on Music" letter * April 2, 2007 - EMI agrees to sell iTunes catalog DRM free (initially for slightly higher price) * ~ August, 2007(?) - Universal sells DRM-free tracks on iTunes Store competitors * January-April 2009 - Apple completely(?) removes Fairplay from all iTunes Store tracks Now, you can dig up a few different charts concerning Apple's iTunes music sales. Presumably, they're all compiled from SEC filings, so they track fairly closely. Let's use these two: http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ or https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ (both offer absolute sales, not % breakdown) The most notable thing to me is that around mid-'07 to '09, you start to see music sales no longer experiencing the same growth. Incidentally, app and video sales begin in approximately the same period and fill in to maintain total growth -- no one ever accused Apple of being stupid. Point being, by the time Apple removed DRM (and debatable in terms of Jobs' letter's timing depending on how their higher-fidelity internal numbers were looking), music was on the decline. End result: Apple had 4 years of first mover advantage, then did away with DRM at a time when music sales were no longer experiencing growth. Are savvy business / PR decisions and coincidence from an altruistic Apple both explanations for the above? Yes. Do I personally believe Apple was pushing tooth and nail to undermine a key business strength of their platform the entire time? No. (Feel free to correct my timeline or numbers if I'm off on something. This isn't exhaustively researched!)
robmcm 11y ago
While the article may have a pro Apple bias this comment exudes a negative Apple bias. Equally distasteful.
stephenr 11y ago
> The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful Your entire comment is just anti-apple biased assumptions. How are you any better than the article?
forgetsusername 11y ago
>I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads." Which for me, is the worst kind. When you accidentally click an ad (sometimes unbeknownst to you) and suddenly the browser is closing and iTunes is opening, trying to get you to install Game of War... That said, if ad-blocking works on iOS, I think much of what he writes comes true. It will be interesting.
- robmcm 11y ago
  Please remember that Apple has only said they will support plugins for Safari, no direct mention of ad blocking. If there is ad blocking it will be provided by a third party. If it is then it will be up to the third party if they want to block this kind of advert. By their nature however "install banners" are typically part of the content (if it's for the site's own application) so a typical ad blocker wouldn't catch them. If however it's a third party advert showing an app install dialogue/overlay it will likely be blocked, by the fact it will likely come from an ad providing domain.
  - SyneRyder 11y ago
    Apple has at least mentioned ad blocking to developers - the example given on the Apple Developer website for how to make a Safari plugin is called "Declarative Ad Blocker": https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Art/ExtensionBuilder_AdBlocker_smaller_2x.png https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...
    - robmcm 11y ago
      "I stand corrected" said the man in the orthopedic shoe! Thanks
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Install banners are built in to the browser, and just show metadata provided by the site. I strongly doubt they will be blockable.
ceejayoz 11y ago
> Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. Not if those apps are free and using non-Apple advertising networks like AdMob.
- roninb 11y ago
  Then they still get the $100 the dev paid to publish the app in the first place.
  - Luc 11y ago
    $100 per year and per company, for unlimited Mac, iOS and Apple Watch apps.
    - roninb 11y ago
      Sorry wasn't saying it was anywhere near as much as a cut of ad revenue. Just that they are still getting something from you as a developer.
      - interpol_p 11y ago
        They give you value for your $100. You get two technical support incidents per year: an Apple engineer will assist with code issues. They handle all necessary tax withholding in countries which require it. This is something you had to do yourself with Google Play (unsure if this is still the case). You also get access to CloudKit and various other Apple-hosted services which can be used within your apps. I don't doubt that they make a profit on your developer enrolment fee, but it's almost nothing in the scheme of things, and you are actually paying for something.
  - robmcm 11y ago
    $100 minus the reviewer salary, bandwidth, support, etc etc
    - andrepd 11y ago
Luc 11y ago
Honestly, aren't your comments as much an example of Apple bias as what you're commenting on, but with the sign reversed?
- hiou 11y ago
  If you look at moves made by Apple in the iPhone era it becomes quite clear and does not require bias. - Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps. - Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle. - Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this. Apple's business model is pretty simple. Aquire a user through very aggressive marketing converted into a device purchase. Use that device purchase a an entry point to take over all points of monetary action of that user. That means nothing(web, flash, credit card) should go through anything but them. You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is.
  - usaphp 11y ago
    > "Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle." Are you saying that web apps run on android browser smoother than on iOs Safari? I don't think so... > "Ban Flash. Biggest competition for apps". I think Flash was banned because it's crap in terms of security and battery drainer, not much because its a competition to apps. You seem to be pretty bias in your comments...
    - hiou 11y ago
      The statement of discussion was > User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. My points were evidence to the contrary of that statement. I was not discussing the motivations of Google in regards to their users. My point is that Apple's business model is about expansive control of a highly profitable user base. It uses an expensive device purchase(which increases the pain point of a user leaving) through aggressive marketing to attempt to be the primary source of as many monetary behaviors of that user as possible. Flash(and upcoming AIR) was at the time a true contender for becoming the cross platform desktop/native type application interface. Once Apple banned Flash, companies moved away from the platform and it withered. Since you brought up the Android browser, we can use it as an example of a company who would prefer to increase the use of the web. Google actively tries to increase adoption of the mobile Chrome browser as it cannot control the the updating schedules of phone vendors. Bases upon browser statistics it appears Google is having some success. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-US-monthly-201406-201506 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-US-monthly-201406-... Google is not any better, but we can look at the difference in their behavior as an example of a difference in business model. Google and Facebook are somewhat dependent(at this time) on some attributes of the web. This difference in these companies(including Apple) can be shown in their support for deep linking. http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/james-turner-urx-deep-linking-google-apple-facebook/436671 http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/james-turner-urx-deep-link... And to prove I am not picking on Apple directly, part of Google's business model is to leverage their search results to expand into other monetary behaviors of their users as well. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8613839/google-adding-buy-buttons-to-mobile-search http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8613839/google-adding-buy-... Technology implementations by large tech companies are typically more indicative of their business intentions as opposed to their abilities. I'm not saying that Apple is any worse than any other company. Only that their particular business model at this time is, in my opinion, the most dangerous to the overall ecosystem and tech economy.
cousin_it 11y ago
That move might backfire, though. If Apple devices offer an ad-free web but not ad-free apps, then users will drift toward the web, just as content creators drift toward apps.
- kazinator 11y ago
  But that specific content going into the apps won't be available on the web. Users who want that content won't find it there. It will be in the apps, where the ads can't be easily blocked (without reverse engineering and altering on an app-by-app basis).
  - talmand 11y ago
    Well, if there's a decent shift in behavior and expectations then it would be possible for that content to shift as well. Once upon a time all that content was in web apps, now it is in native apps, and it's possible for it go back.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
luso_brazilian 11y ago
> I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads. Apple won't consider anything as ads. What they provided was the hooks for developers to implement "Content Blocking Safari Extensions" [1]. To quote the docs: "Your app extension is responsible for supplying a JSON file to Safari. The JSON consists of an array of rules (triggers and actions) for blocking specified content. Safari converts the JSON to bytecode, which it applies efficiently to all resource loads without leaking information about the user’s browsing back to the app extension." There will be competing AdBlocking extensions just like on Firefox, for instance. It will be up to the developers to create the rules of what should be blocked and what should be allowed. [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_9.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014305-CH9-SW9 https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...
- mikeash 11y ago
  Apple provides hooks so that a web page can display an official, system supported "there is an app for this web site, tap here to download it" banner. I will bet $5 that Apple does not provide a way to block those.
  - ChrisLTD 11y ago
    I did a few minutes of research into this. The app banners are triggered by a meta tag, so there won't be a way to block those.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    But is that really an ad? If I go to CNN, and CNN tells me I can use the same site in a native app, I'm not sure that quite counts. Now if CNN carries (for a fee) a download link for an app for something different, a brokerage house, or Ford, or something, now that would be interesting to see if they block it. My guess is that they would initially, then relax the blocking. Seems to be the preferred way to manipulate the populace these days (unless you have fear as a tool- fear is way better).
    - 11y ago
rayiner 11y ago
It can be both. If people find the ad supported web unpleasant, doing the right thing for the user experience is also something that benefits their bottom line.
- adamlett 11y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. A convincing argument can be made that the reason Apple is so successful is precisely because Apple business goals are in alignment with their customers' and users' interest.
- danielweber 11y ago
  If people incorrectly assume that the alternative to "free with ads" is "free with no ads" then we will have a market failure.
  - interpol_p 11y ago
    I think "free with ads" is being done backwards most of the time. It's all about analysing the user to algorithmically determine the best pre-designed ad to serve them. It's tacky and people are extremely good at ignoring it, even without ad blockers. "Free with ads" should be that my favourite authors get paid to use a product or service and then write about it if they like it. I don't want to see ads for things that a computer predicts I will like, I want to see ads for things that someone I enjoy reading, and share similar tastes with, likes.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      How in the hell would that work for some dinky little mobile game?
      - interpol_p 11y ago
        Yeah I don't think ad-supported is good for mobile games. What are we doing at the moment? Forcing players to watch videos to earn coins, sticking ads in user's faces. No one wants this. It just dilutes the value of advertisements and annoys users. Just because it generates money doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
gwu78 11y ago
I block "in-app" ads the same way I block "web" ads. Most ads use the same third party DNS services which makes blocking even easier.
- egze 11y ago
  How do you block them?
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    Hosts file, I assume
    - gwu78 11y ago
      But Apple users (who do not "jailbreak") are prevented from accessing their own device's files, e.g., the HOSTS file. Apple denies the user reasonable control of the device they purchased. (Denying access to the HOSTS file is unreasonble in my opinion.) But Apple does not (yet) exercise control over the network(s) that the user has joined. As long as the user can still control at least some aspects of her own network (yes, she still can), then the user can block ads. In my case, I use DNS to block ads. It is remarkably effective. But there are certainly other ways to do it.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Apps can be written to refuse to run if they can't fetch their ads. This can be baked into compiled code. Apps can be written to download and cache ads periodically as part of their "update" process, and display these ads even when you don't have an internet connection. If they are not able to update these ads for some time (say 60 days), they can then refuse to run: "the application has expired and needs an update; please connect to the Internet". New ads are fetched when the user connects and lets the app update.
  - gwu78 11y ago
    Have not encountered any apps like you describe. Examples?
happyscrappy 11y ago
Advertisers hate iAd because it doesn't let you harvest nearly as much users data as most platforms. Advertisers can go suck a lemon as far as I am concerned. It is hard for some people to see past their own Apple hate but success speaks for itself. It doesn't hurt that the competition keeps shooting themselves in the foot.
- andresmanz 11y ago
  > success speaks for itself Our experience as developers should tell us that this isn't true. Success often implies popularity, and popularity is not a very good indicator for quality.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    That is true but they consistently are at the top of user satisfaction surveys. I suppose you could argue they were all tricked with marketing, but that doesn't really hold water in the long run. No one even bothers debating who has the best hardware build quality.
collyw 11y ago
Everything that Apple releases is a "revolution" according to Apple fans. I had guessed it was going to be about Safari from the title.
- doodpants 11y ago
  "Everything that Apple releases is a 'revolution' according to Apple fans" according to Apple haters. See Artie MacStrawman[1]. The article isn't saying that Apple enabling ad blocking in Safari is a "revolutionary" new feature; it's saying that bringing ad blocking into the mainstream could cause a serious disruption in existing online advertising business models. [1]http://crazyapplerumors.com/2006/08/21/everybody-tired-of-one-mac-user/ http://crazyapplerumors.com/2006/08/21/everybody-tired-of-on...
  - collyw 11y ago
    because everyone who doesn't worship Apple is a "hater".
smackfu 11y ago
Yes, it is not a coincidence that Apple introduced ad blockers at the same time as their own News app that doesn't allow you to block ads.
- wahsd 11y ago
  Bingo!!! That's the real and legitimate conspiracy here. They are trying to leverage their ... qualitative ... market dominance to "urge" news content providers to shift their content to the News app where the Apple ad network is king. I would also like to point out that Apple is not only strong-arming the news content sector, but they are also actively damaging if not destroying various other app companies that are in that space with their unfair advantage. The unfair advantage basically comes into play because they are the effective governmental regulatory body of the Apple ecosystem and therefore have disproportionate leverage and power over those in their ecosystem. You may say, so what, it's their ecosystem, but that is inherently contradictory to having a fair and level playing-field where you compete based on merits, value, and worth. It's quite odd that Apple really doesn't like to compete and is rather lazy when it comes to competing. They would rather strong-arm people to extract profits, which really isn't all that different than a protection racket ... "Oh, you want ad revenue? It would be a shame if you didn't get any ad revenue because something happened to your shitty little store and all the ads were stripped out. But we here at Apple would like to offer you a brand new opportunity to protect your ad revenue with Apple News."
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  It's a revolution though! Apple finally enabled users of their gimped mobile OS to do something that they've been able to do for 20 years on desktop computers.
ionised 11y ago
I'm an Android user and I didn't really get bias from the article, save a bias against ads and a compliment to Apple for allowing Adblocking.
s73v3r 11y ago
If what you were saying had any merit, then Google would be doing the same. Because, in case you forgot, they also have a popular mobile app store.
fuzzy76 11y ago
Apple was clear when announcing this that their goal was NOT to block ads. It was to block stuff that a) tracked you and b) caused your surfing to slow down. This is what they're aiming for.

by vilmosi 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago

You are spot on. Apple's obvious point of view is this: random websites not affiliated with Apple are using our devices to advertize to the user. That must be stopped! We own the device, after all, and if the user is going to be advertized to, we give the permission for that and want a cut. Plus the wild and wooly ads are obnoxious. We can decide what is acceptable to our users and how it is presented, for a better (though not ad-free) experience.

dhimes 11y ago
Imagine LG doing something like this with their TVs...
- fuzzy76 11y ago
  Adblocking? I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

Steko 11y ago

> The reason Apple does this is to push content creators away from the Web and into native apps. This is baloney, Apple hosts free apps at a loss. The idea that Apple wants you to have an app for every website is absolutely ridiculous. Safari is one of the most used iOS apps today and will be so for at least the better part of the next decade. > Bullshit. They have their own advertising network they want to push. iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. In all likelihood Apple sees a competitive browser advantage: people like X, Google will not do X on Android. They'll load up The Verge during the keynote and show that it takes 1/X the time that the top of the line Android phones do and 11 year olds will walk around telling each other that Safari is X times faster than Chrome.

e40 11y ago
iAds is a rounding error on Apple's business. It may be now, but I'll bet they don't think it will be in the future.
- Steko 11y ago
  Optional, download-it-yourself ad blockers aren't likely to move the needle on iAd growth. This is the problem with many of the comments here. 90% of iOS users won't use it.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  I doubt it will be around in the future. Apple introduced iAds because they wanted better (i.e., less tacky) mobile ads. Recall their initial messaging around iAds: we design your ads, extremely costly initial ad buys, only big brands. They even enabled WebGL just for iAd. Unfortunately banner ads are tacky no matter what. iAds was all about making the rising-in-popularity (at the time) free, ad-supported apps less horrid. Increasing the perceived quality of their platform, and selling more hardware.

danieldk 11y ago

That's too simple. Apple (and others) have relentlessly tried to optimize power saving. People like phones with a good battery time, plus I assume that there can be significant cost saving if you can use smaller capacity batteries. They have probably come to a point where a significant amount of power use during mobile browsing is caused by ads (both rendering and the extra network use that it incurs). Blocking ads could be a welcome power saver.

ethbro 11y ago
While this pay be true, at some point profit trumps UX. Look at how the iPod+iTunes morphed as soon as Apple realized how much money could be generated by adding DRM and a store.
- Steko 11y ago
  Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....
  - ethbro 11y ago
    >> Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/* https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.... > The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music. "Thoughts on Music" | Steve Jobs | February 6, 2007 ----------- And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. Taking Jobs 100% at his word (i.e. Apple was dedicated to DRM-free music, was in continual negotiation with the labels to strip it, and was contractually obligated to continue to use it despite their reluctance), here's how the timeline ultimately turned out: * October 23, 2001 - First iPod introduced * April 28, 2003 - iTunes Store w/ Fairplay introduced * February 6, 2007 - Job's "Thoughts on Music" letter * April 2, 2007 - EMI agrees to sell iTunes catalog DRM free (initially for slightly higher price) * ~ August, 2007(?) - Universal sells DRM-free tracks on iTunes Store competitors * January-April 2009 - Apple completely(?) removes Fairplay from all iTunes Store tracks Now, you can dig up a few different charts concerning Apple's iTunes music sales. Presumably, they're all compiled from SEC filings, so they track fairly closely. Let's use these two: http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/ or https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/tag/app-store/ (both offer absolute sales, not % breakdown) The most notable thing to me is that around mid-'07 to '09, you start to see music sales no longer experiencing the same growth. Incidentally, app and video sales begin in approximately the same period and fill in to maintain total growth -- no one ever accused Apple of being stupid. Point being, by the time Apple removed DRM (and debatable in terms of Jobs' letter's timing depending on how their higher-fidelity internal numbers were looking), music was on the decline. End result: Apple had 4 years of first mover advantage, then did away with DRM at a time when music sales were no longer experiencing growth. Are savvy business / PR decisions and coincidence from an altruistic Apple both explanations for the above? Yes. Do I personally believe Apple was pushing tooth and nail to undermine a key business strength of their platform the entire time? No. (Feel free to correct my timeline or numbers if I'm off on something. This isn't exhaustively researched!)

robmcm 11y ago

While the article may have a pro Apple bias this comment exudes a negative Apple bias. Equally distasteful.

stephenr 11y ago

> The overall article is of good quality but it reeks of Apple bias I personally find distasteful Your entire comment is just anti-apple biased assumptions. How are you any better than the article?

forgetsusername 11y ago

>I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads." Which for me, is the worst kind. When you accidentally click an ad (sometimes unbeknownst to you) and suddenly the browser is closing and iTunes is opening, trying to get you to install Game of War... That said, if ad-blocking works on iOS, I think much of what he writes comes true. It will be interesting.

robmcm 11y ago
Please remember that Apple has only said they will support plugins for Safari, no direct mention of ad blocking. If there is ad blocking it will be provided by a third party. If it is then it will be up to the third party if they want to block this kind of advert. By their nature however "install banners" are typically part of the content (if it's for the site's own application) so a typical ad blocker wouldn't catch them. If however it's a third party advert showing an app install dialogue/overlay it will likely be blocked, by the fact it will likely come from an ad providing domain.
- SyneRyder 11y ago
  Apple has at least mentioned ad blocking to developers - the example given on the Apple Developer website for how to make a Safari plugin is called "Declarative Ad Blocker": https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Art/ExtensionBuilder_AdBlocker_smaller_2x.png https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...
  - robmcm 11y ago
    "I stand corrected" said the man in the orthopedic shoe! Thanks
- mikeash 11y ago
  Install banners are built in to the browser, and just show metadata provided by the site. I strongly doubt they will be blockable.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> Apple gets a cut on any money made from apps but not from Web ads. Not if those apps are free and using non-Apple advertising networks like AdMob.

roninb 11y ago
Then they still get the $100 the dev paid to publish the app in the first place.
- Luc 11y ago
  $100 per year and per company, for unlimited Mac, iOS and Apple Watch apps.
  - roninb 11y ago
    Sorry wasn't saying it was anywhere near as much as a cut of ad revenue. Just that they are still getting something from you as a developer.
    - interpol_p 11y ago
      They give you value for your $100. You get two technical support incidents per year: an Apple engineer will assist with code issues. They handle all necessary tax withholding in countries which require it. This is something you had to do yourself with Google Play (unsure if this is still the case). You also get access to CloudKit and various other Apple-hosted services which can be used within your apps. I don't doubt that they make a profit on your developer enrolment fee, but it's almost nothing in the scheme of things, and you are actually paying for something.
- robmcm 11y ago
  $100 minus the reviewer salary, bandwidth, support, etc etc
  - andrepd 11y ago

Luc 11y ago

Honestly, aren't your comments as much an example of Apple bias as what you're commenting on, but with the sign reversed?

hiou 11y ago
If you look at moves made by Apple in the iPhone era it becomes quite clear and does not require bias. - Ban flash. Biggest competition to native apps. - Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle. - Release their own map to push Google out of their ecosystem. When that didn't work now they are trying this. Apple's business model is pretty simple. Aquire a user through very aggressive marketing converted into a device purchase. Use that device purchase a an entry point to take over all points of monetary action of that user. That means nothing(web, flash, credit card) should go through anything but them. You don't need bias to see something as obvious as this now is.
- usaphp 11y ago
  > "Cripple the iOS web browser just enough that web apps trying to have native style performance will struggle." Are you saying that web apps run on android browser smoother than on iOs Safari? I don't think so... > "Ban Flash. Biggest competition for apps". I think Flash was banned because it's crap in terms of security and battery drainer, not much because its a competition to apps. You seem to be pretty bias in your comments...
  - hiou 11y ago
    The statement of discussion was > User experience is what Apple puts above pretty much everything else, and they’ve decided that they don’t like it the experience available through the ad-supported web, and so they’re going to do something about it. My points were evidence to the contrary of that statement. I was not discussing the motivations of Google in regards to their users. My point is that Apple's business model is about expansive control of a highly profitable user base. It uses an expensive device purchase(which increases the pain point of a user leaving) through aggressive marketing to attempt to be the primary source of as many monetary behaviors of that user as possible. Flash(and upcoming AIR) was at the time a true contender for becoming the cross platform desktop/native type application interface. Once Apple banned Flash, companies moved away from the platform and it withered. Since you brought up the Android browser, we can use it as an example of a company who would prefer to increase the use of the web. Google actively tries to increase adoption of the mobile Chrome browser as it cannot control the the updating schedules of phone vendors. Bases upon browser statistics it appears Google is having some success. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-US-monthly-201406-201506 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-US-monthly-201406-... Google is not any better, but we can look at the difference in their behavior as an example of a difference in business model. Google and Facebook are somewhat dependent(at this time) on some attributes of the web. This difference in these companies(including Apple) can be shown in their support for deep linking. http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/james-turner-urx-deep-linking-google-apple-facebook/436671 http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/james-turner-urx-deep-link... And to prove I am not picking on Apple directly, part of Google's business model is to leverage their search results to expand into other monetary behaviors of their users as well. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8613839/google-adding-buy-buttons-to-mobile-search http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8613839/google-adding-buy-... Technology implementations by large tech companies are typically more indicative of their business intentions as opposed to their abilities. I'm not saying that Apple is any worse than any other company. Only that their particular business model at this time is, in my opinion, the most dangerous to the overall ecosystem and tech economy.

cousin_it 11y ago

That move might backfire, though. If Apple devices offer an ad-free web but not ad-free apps, then users will drift toward the web, just as content creators drift toward apps.

kazinator 11y ago
But that specific content going into the apps won't be available on the web. Users who want that content won't find it there. It will be in the apps, where the ads can't be easily blocked (without reverse engineering and altering on an app-by-app basis).
- talmand 11y ago
  Well, if there's a decent shift in behavior and expectations then it would be possible for that content to shift as well. Once upon a time all that content was in web apps, now it is in native apps, and it's possible for it go back.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

luso_brazilian 11y ago

> I'll bet Apple won't consider "Install from Apple Store" type messages as ads. Apple won't consider anything as ads. What they provided was the hooks for developers to implement "Content Blocking Safari Extensions" [1]. To quote the docs: "Your app extension is responsible for supplying a JSON file to Safari. The JSON consists of an array of rules (triggers and actions) for blocking specified content. Safari converts the JSON to bytecode, which it applies efficiently to all resource loads without leaking information about the user’s browsing back to the app extension." There will be competing AdBlocking extensions just like on Firefox, for instance. It will be up to the developers to create the rules of what should be blocked and what should be allowed. [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_9.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014305-CH9-SW9 https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releaseno...

mikeash 11y ago
Apple provides hooks so that a web page can display an official, system supported "there is an app for this web site, tap here to download it" banner. I will bet $5 that Apple does not provide a way to block those.
- ChrisLTD 11y ago
  I did a few minutes of research into this. The app banners are triggered by a meta tag, so there won't be a way to block those.
- dhimes 11y ago
  But is that really an ad? If I go to CNN, and CNN tells me I can use the same site in a native app, I'm not sure that quite counts. Now if CNN carries (for a fee) a download link for an app for something different, a brokerage house, or Ford, or something, now that would be interesting to see if they block it. My guess is that they would initially, then relax the blocking. Seems to be the preferred way to manipulate the populace these days (unless you have fear as a tool- fear is way better).
  - 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

It can be both. If people find the ad supported web unpleasant, doing the right thing for the user experience is also something that benefits their bottom line.

adamlett 11y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. A convincing argument can be made that the reason Apple is so successful is precisely because Apple business goals are in alignment with their customers' and users' interest.
danielweber 11y ago
If people incorrectly assume that the alternative to "free with ads" is "free with no ads" then we will have a market failure.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  I think "free with ads" is being done backwards most of the time. It's all about analysing the user to algorithmically determine the best pre-designed ad to serve them. It's tacky and people are extremely good at ignoring it, even without ad blockers. "Free with ads" should be that my favourite authors get paid to use a product or service and then write about it if they like it. I don't want to see ads for things that a computer predicts I will like, I want to see ads for things that someone I enjoy reading, and share similar tastes with, likes.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    How in the hell would that work for some dinky little mobile game?
    - interpol_p 11y ago
      Yeah I don't think ad-supported is good for mobile games. What are we doing at the moment? Forcing players to watch videos to earn coins, sticking ads in user's faces. No one wants this. It just dilutes the value of advertisements and annoys users. Just because it generates money doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

gwu78 11y ago

I block "in-app" ads the same way I block "web" ads. Most ads use the same third party DNS services which makes blocking even easier.

egze 11y ago
How do you block them?
- joshuapants 11y ago
  Hosts file, I assume
  - gwu78 11y ago
    But Apple users (who do not "jailbreak") are prevented from accessing their own device's files, e.g., the HOSTS file. Apple denies the user reasonable control of the device they purchased. (Denying access to the HOSTS file is unreasonble in my opinion.) But Apple does not (yet) exercise control over the network(s) that the user has joined. As long as the user can still control at least some aspects of her own network (yes, she still can), then the user can block ads. In my case, I use DNS to block ads. It is remarkably effective. But there are certainly other ways to do it.
kazinator 11y ago
Apps can be written to refuse to run if they can't fetch their ads. This can be baked into compiled code. Apps can be written to download and cache ads periodically as part of their "update" process, and display these ads even when you don't have an internet connection. If they are not able to update these ads for some time (say 60 days), they can then refuse to run: "the application has expired and needs an update; please connect to the Internet". New ads are fetched when the user connects and lets the app update.
- gwu78 11y ago
  Have not encountered any apps like you describe. Examples?

happyscrappy 11y ago

Advertisers hate iAd because it doesn't let you harvest nearly as much users data as most platforms. Advertisers can go suck a lemon as far as I am concerned. It is hard for some people to see past their own Apple hate but success speaks for itself. It doesn't hurt that the competition keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

andresmanz 11y ago
> success speaks for itself Our experience as developers should tell us that this isn't true. Success often implies popularity, and popularity is not a very good indicator for quality.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  That is true but they consistently are at the top of user satisfaction surveys. I suppose you could argue they were all tricked with marketing, but that doesn't really hold water in the long run. No one even bothers debating who has the best hardware build quality.

collyw 11y ago

Everything that Apple releases is a "revolution" according to Apple fans. I had guessed it was going to be about Safari from the title.

doodpants 11y ago
"Everything that Apple releases is a 'revolution' according to Apple fans" according to Apple haters. See Artie MacStrawman[1]. The article isn't saying that Apple enabling ad blocking in Safari is a "revolutionary" new feature; it's saying that bringing ad blocking into the mainstream could cause a serious disruption in existing online advertising business models. [1]http://crazyapplerumors.com/2006/08/21/everybody-tired-of-one-mac-user/ http://crazyapplerumors.com/2006/08/21/everybody-tired-of-on...
- collyw 11y ago
  because everyone who doesn't worship Apple is a "hater".

smackfu 11y ago

Yes, it is not a coincidence that Apple introduced ad blockers at the same time as their own News app that doesn't allow you to block ads.

wahsd 11y ago
Bingo!!! That's the real and legitimate conspiracy here. They are trying to leverage their ... qualitative ... market dominance to "urge" news content providers to shift their content to the News app where the Apple ad network is king. I would also like to point out that Apple is not only strong-arming the news content sector, but they are also actively damaging if not destroying various other app companies that are in that space with their unfair advantage. The unfair advantage basically comes into play because they are the effective governmental regulatory body of the Apple ecosystem and therefore have disproportionate leverage and power over those in their ecosystem. You may say, so what, it's their ecosystem, but that is inherently contradictory to having a fair and level playing-field where you compete based on merits, value, and worth. It's quite odd that Apple really doesn't like to compete and is rather lazy when it comes to competing. They would rather strong-arm people to extract profits, which really isn't all that different than a protection racket ... "Oh, you want ad revenue? It would be a shame if you didn't get any ad revenue because something happened to your shitty little store and all the ads were stripped out. But we here at Apple would like to offer you a brand new opportunity to protect your ad revenue with Apple News."
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
It's a revolution though! Apple finally enabled users of their gimped mobile OS to do something that they've been able to do for 20 years on desktop computers.

ionised 11y ago

I'm an Android user and I didn't really get bias from the article, save a bias against ads and a compliment to Apple for allowing Adblocking.

s73v3r 11y ago

If what you were saying had any merit, then Google would be doing the same. Because, in case you forgot, they also have a popular mobile app store.

fuzzy76 11y ago

Apple was clear when announcing this that their goal was NOT to block ads. It was to block stuff that a) tracked you and b) caused your surfing to slow down. This is what they're aiming for.